Should GBR split the rail network by region or by traffic type?

[irish_rail]

So three big unresponsive blobs killing investment. Operations like west coast, LNER, and SWR are big enough and customer focused enough - no gain from going bigger.

A consistency of product and approach across the country will be welcome. So maybe GWR intercity services could be dragged up to the standard of similar services on Wcml and Ecml. Hopefully the ability to move rolling stock about where its actually needed, which may vary depending on time of year etc.

 

[zwk500]

So three big unresponsive blobs killing investment. Operations like west coast, LNER, and SWR are big enough and customer focused enough - no gain from going bigger.

A national 'Intercity' would still be subdivided internally into ECML, WCML, XC, MML, GWML, etc units as part of it's day-to-day management. However being part of a bigger overall unit may help gain efficiencies in resource utilisation and allocation, especially for planned disruption around engineering or events.

Although to gain proper flexibility will also require reversing the general trend of reducing individual depot route knowledge, which is not specifically to do with the organisational structure.

 

[Manutd1999]

Creating the InterCity group would also be a natural first-step in the (substantial) administatrative effort which will be required.

The government can simply re-brand LNER and then merge franchises, or parts of them, with it as the contracts expire. There would be minimal changes to the day-to-day ops in the short term but a gradual merging of back-office functions to gain some small efficiencies.

Then, over time, the depots/routes can be re-assessed to unlock the potential bigger benefits. For example, LNER/EMR drivers could start to operate some long-distance XC services.

 

[irish_rail]

Creating the InterCity group would also be a natural first-step in the (substantial) administatrative effort which will be required.

The government can simply re-brand LNER and then merge franchises, or parts of them, with it as the contracts expire. There would be minimal changes to the day-to-day ops in the short term but a gradual merging of back-office functions to gain some small efficiencies.

Then, over time, the depots/routes can be re-assessed to unlock the potential bigger benefits. For example, LNER/EMR drivers could start to operate some long-distance XC services.

Indeed, and similarly GWR drivers at say Plymouth could also drive XC voyagers. I think its intercity where the biggest efficency savings can definitely be made. The amalgamation of Ts Cs and salary will be rather more difficult however, I can't see any way of doing it that the union would accept other than everyone earning what the current top earners are on.

 

[JonathanH]

The amalgamation of Ts Cs and salary will be rather more difficult however, I can't see any way of doing it that the union would accept other than everyone earning what the current top earners are on.

Yes, and the current top earners wouldn't be happy about waiting for the lower paid group to catch up.

 

[furnessvale]

This is wandering off topic so we probably shouldn't discuss it further, but the payload of a 20ft tanktainer can be up to 24 tonnes. A 102t tank wagon is ~60ft long and thus could be replaced with a flat wagon carrying three 20ft tanktainers for about ~72t or so.


Intermodal is crushing specialised rolling stock across the world! But again, wandering off topic.

I'll let the mods decide what is "on topic", but a 60ft intermodal flat capable of grossing 102t is emphatically not a standard piece of equipment and would be every bit as specialised as a standard 102t tank wagon, but would tare several tonnes more, reducing payload..

If intermodal can do the job better than specialised wagons, why not go the wholehog and put aggregates, cement, timber, steel, steel scrap and every other product in containers?

 

[The Planner]

I'll let the mods decide what is "on topic", but a 60ft intermodal flat capable of grossing 102t is emphatically not a standard piece of equipment and would be every bit as specialised as a standard 102t tank wagon, but would tare several tonnes more, reducing payload..

If intermodal can do the job better than specialised wagons, why not go the wholehog and put aggregates, cement, timber, steel, steel scrap and every other product in containers?

Once you start hitting the bigger weights that aggregate etc get carried at, Class 4 starts to lose any advantage it had anyway.

 

[zwk500]

If intermodal can do the job better than specialised wagons, why not go the wholehog and put aggregates, cement, timber, steel, steel scrap and every other product in containers?

Intermodal loses its advantage of handling for a bulk flow from producer to consumer. Although wasn't there a trial with an intermodal base and 'normal' bodies fitter with the locking lugs?

 

[furnessvale]

Intermodal loses its advantage of handling for a bulk flow from producer to consumer. Although wasn't there a trial with an intermodal base and 'normal' bodies fitter with the locking lugs?

Exactly my point. Intermodal requires a rail vehicle capable of supporting its load of containers, without any assistance from the containers. The containers themselves also need the strength to self support fully loaded when lifted. All this adds tare wieight which is unnecessary if there is no need for trans-shipment.

 

[Meerkat]

A consistency of product and approach across the country will be welcome. So maybe GWR intercity services could be dragged up to the standard of similar services on Wcml and Ecml. Hopefully the ability to move rolling stock about where its actually needed, which may vary depending on time of year etc.

A consistency that will be brought down to, not up. Moving rolling stock means taking it away from somewhere - not so great if your line is deemed not To be the priority.

A national 'Intercity' would still be subdivided internally into ECML, WCML, XC, MML, GWML, etc units as part of it's day-to-day management. However being part of a bigger overall unit may help gain efficiencies in resource utilisation and allocation, especially for planned disruption around engineering or events.

Although to gain proper flexibility will also require reversing the general trend of reducing individual depot route knowledge, which is not specifically to do with the organisational structure.

It’s Treasury run so any resource saving will be making contingency cover even thinner.
And a bigger overall unit means a lack of focus.

 

[Matt P]

But that structure is just the one the UK had before coronavirus!

It's the one the EU imposes on member states.

That isn't correct is it? We did not have a structure at all like DB, SNCF etc and probably haven't at any time since sectorisation and prior to Organising for Quality.

All four EU operators have kept rail and operations under the same roof (although there was a period where this wasn't quite the way in France). Nor has any EU country attempted to put all passenger operations into the private sector and nor does the EU requires it. What it does require is infrastructure and operations separated but not in separate ownership. It requires long distance to be an open market, but that does not prevent a state owned intercity type operator. It also requires public service obligation services (I.e. subsidised) to be put out to competitive tender. This does not mean they must be operated privately, because state owned operators can bit, as DB Regio can and does and still retains (just about) a majority stake in this sector.

OK so this does result in a degree of fragmentation but far less than in the UK. The UK implemented the most extreme interpretation of the original EU directive, one suspects to ensure the complete destruction of BR, and ended up with an extremely fragmented structure.

 

[LLivery]

I'd personally like to see Regions - Southern, East Anglia, Midlands, Northern, Great Western. Within the regions you'd have sectors - e.g Southern (Western, Central, Eastern), Midlands (East, West), Great Western (Thames & Chiltern, West Country), etc, etc.

Intercity - split off and run separately (EC, WC, Midland, XC, GW).

Regional Express - could be a brand of premium regional services with an GBR enforced set of standards, but operationally part of their own regions - I'd include Notts-Cardiff; most TPX, Norwich-Liverpool, maybe EWR, Euston-Crewe, Norwich-London, etc.

Devolution - I'd have more of a Transport for X-GBR alliance with their respective region, rather than LO/Liz Line style. I.e. agree a set of standards, min frequencies, staffing, maintaining GBR integration, but also with the services covered by the respective local transport authority.

Railfreight - DRS is nationalised right? Consider commercial expansion (maybe buy out a profitable foreign operator, bring some money in). Would've said rebrand to GBRf if it wasn't taken...

 

[JonathanH]

I'd personally like to see Regions - Southern, East Anglia, Midlands, Northern, Great Western. Within the regions you'd have sectors - e.g Southern (Western, Central, Eastern), Midlands (East, West), Great Western (Thames & Chiltern, West Country), etc, etc.

Intercity - split off and run separately (EC, WC, Midland, XC, GW).

Is there really point in splitting up 'Intercity' and other services on GWR and Midland?

The residual 'Thames' operation is too small to be isolated now that the Elizabeth Line has taken the suburban traffic, and 'Wessex Trains' wasn't of a sensible size after the Wales routes were removed. GWR is more integrated now than it was in BR days and could be even more so with fewer stock types in the future.

The East Midlands operation is similar. I note that no one is suggesting having London to Norwich as an Intercity route.

A regional basis and everything built around the Intercity 'core' of each route seems to work better for both focus and integration of services.

 

[zwk500]

Is there really point in splitting up 'Intercity' and other services on GWR and Midland?

The residual 'Thames' operation is too small to be isolated now that the Elizabeth Line has taken the suburban traffic, and 'Wessex Trains' wasn't of a sensible size after the Wales routes were removed. GWR is more integrated now than it was in BR days and could be even more so with fewer stock types in the future.

The East Midlands operation is similar. I note that no one is suggesting having London to Norwich as an Intercity route.

A regional basis and everything built around the Intercity 'core' of each route seems to work better for both focus and integration of services.

The GW could be worth it if some of the shorter-distance stuff that was traditionally IC became longer-distance commuting, such as Didcot/Oxford. EM is a slightly harder one because there's a bit of a gap in the local connections at various points which means IC fulfills a hybrid role, although equally I would note that EMR brand themselves as 'Connect', 'Regional' and 'Intercity'. https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/media/499/download?inline

 

[Matt P]

I'd personally like to see Regions - Southern, East Anglia, Midlands, Northern, Great Western. Within the regions you'd have sectors - e.g Southern (Western, Central, Eastern), Midlands (East, West), Great Western (Thames & Chiltern, West Country), etc, etc.

Intercity - split off and run separately (EC, WC, Midland, XC, GW).

Regional Express - could be a brand of premium regional services with an GBR enforced set of standards, but operationally part of their own regions - I'd include Notts-Cardiff; most TPX, Norwich-Liverpool, maybe EWR, Euston-Crewe, Norwich-London, etc.

Devolution - I'd have more of a Transport for X-GBR alliance with their respective region, rather than LO/Liz Line style. I.e. agree a set of standards, min frequencies, staffing, maintaining GBR integration, but also with the services covered by the respective local transport authority.

Railfreight - DRS is nationalised right? Consider commercial expansion (maybe buy out a profitable foreign operator, bring some money in). Would've said rebrand to GBRf if it wasn't taken...

I think there's a significant risk that having regions and sectors creates significant problems.

If the regions operate the sector in their area there is quite a significant risk of them operating them quite differently to one another. This would be not such an issue for the UK equivalent of DB's Regionalbahn services because these should be delivered in cooperative (or commissioned by) local government so would reflect the geography and demographics of the region.

It is more of an issue for Intercity, which would operate more on a route by route basis, with some (Cross Country ) operating accross severall regions. I think this (and any freight sector) would have to be a separate and true national operator. This makes sense for another reason. Intercity should operate in a commercial environment and expected to make a profit, indeed as BR's Intercity sector was expected to. Regional services would be more of a mixed bag of services that are socially desirable but not commercially viable plus some that are profitable so the business model would be different.

 

[LLivery]

Is there really point in splitting up 'Intercity' and other services on GWR and Midland?

The residual 'Thames' operation is too small to be isolated now that the Elizabeth Line has taken the suburban traffic, and 'Wessex Trains' wasn't of a sensible size after the Wales routes were removed. GWR is more integrated now than it was in BR days and could be even more so with fewer stock types in the future.

The East Midlands operation is similar. I note that no one is suggesting having London to Norwich as an Intercity route.

A regional basis and everything built around the Intercity 'core' of each route seems to work better for both focus and integration of services.

I had thought this myself, but Thames would be run with Chiltern. If GWR & Midland IC is not split operationally, then like my Regional Express proposal, GBR agrees a national set of Intercity standards, and the Intercity service is run to those standards by their region. But as said below, you'll still get differences between IC services. Saying that, often 'one size fits all' is a mistake, but fragmentation is also a mistake.

Where does CrossCountry fit into regions?

I think there's a significant risk that having regions and sectors creates significant problems.

If the regions operate the sector in their area there is quite a significant risk of them operating them quite differently to one another. This would be not such an issue for the UK equivalent of DB's Regionalbahn services because these should be delivered in cooperative (or commissioned by) local government so would reflect the geography and demographics of the region.

It is more of an issue for Intercity, which would operate more on a route by route basis, with some (Cross Country ) operating accross severall regions. I think this (and any freight sector) would have to be a separate and true national operator. This makes sense for another reason. Intercity should operate in a commercial environment and expected to make a profit, indeed as BR's Intercity sector was expected to. Regional services would be more of a mixed bag of services that are socially desirable but not commercially viable plus some that are profitable so the business model would be different.

The only reason I said split Southern into sectors, (I should've said 'Divisions') is because it's huge and one operational team for it seems unlikely, but I'd absolutely want a unified region. Am I right in thinking, even when it was all Southern Railway/Region, it was still in divisions?

As for your Intercity points, I agree - I wasn't proposing divisions for this, just highlighting the routes. Intercity will make real money, it needs to be the flagship and run brilliantly.

 

[43096]

I’d go back to the business sectors model as BR had it after OforQ: it produced the most customer-focused version of BR. One change I would make to that model would be for traincrew to be part of a central “production” function to enable much more efficient diagramming, route knowledge retention etc; I think it is similar to the Austrian model where staff work for ÖBB Produktion rather than being sectorised to passenger or freight.

As for freight, leave it alone as an open access, privatised, model. It works, and GBR will have more than enough issues to deal without adding freight.

 

[irish_rail]

I’d go back to the business sectors model as BR had it after OforQ: it produced the most customer-focused version of BR. One change I would make to that model would be for traincrew to be part of a central “production” function to enable much more efficient diagramming, route knowledge retention etc; I think it is similar to the Austrian model where staff work for ÖBB Produktion rather than being sectorised to passenger or freight.

As for freight, leave it alone as an open access, privatised, model. It works, and GBR will have more than enough issues to deal without adding freight.

I'd vote for this too. As BR was in the early 90s , except , unlike then, traincrew not restricted to a particular operation.

 

[Dr Day]

Much of the discussion on this thread assumes 'the railway' remains independent of other transport modes. There are some arguments for maintaining a national 'mainline' railway network (infrastructure and fast services between big places) but leaving the rest (and the same lump of funding as the rest of 'the railway' gets today) with the sub- regional transport bodies who can decide what additional local services and infrastructure they want to operate as heavy railway (and either pay the mainline business to operate it on their behalf including where applicable the net cost of inserting more minor calls into the fast services or operate it themselves), and what they want to operate as light rail or bus or something else.

Things like through ticketing and safety can be maintained by ORR.

Appreciate this will go down like a lead balloon on here though, and I'm not necessarily personally in favour of something like this, but it is another form of structure that could be considered.

 

[Krokodil]

Is there really point in splitting up 'Intercity' and other services on GWR and Midland?

The residual 'Thames' operation is too small to be isolated now that the Elizabeth Line has taken the suburban traffic, and 'Wessex Trains' wasn't of a sensible size after the Wales routes were removed. GWR is more integrated now than it was in BR days and could be even more so with fewer stock types in the future.

The East Midlands operation is similar. I note that no one is suggesting having London to Norwich as an Intercity route.

A regional basis and everything built around the Intercity 'core' of each route seems to work better for both focus and integration of services.

The only change I'd make to GWR is that XC would hire their crews (and crews from other operators). Otherwise just have it work closely with Network Rail.

In fact, it may be worth breaking up Network Rail on a regional basis to match the amalgamated operators. It may allow for greater innovation.

 

[Meerkat]

The only change I'd make to GWR is that XC would hire their crews (and crews from other operators). Otherwise just have it work closely with Network Rail.

In fact, it may be worth breaking up Network Rail on a regional basis to match the amalgamated operators. It may allow for greater innovation.

Ar you saying train operation is better/more efficient at greater scale or not?

 

[Krokodil]

Ar you saying train operation is better/more efficient at greater scale or not?

I'm saying that there is a goldilocks size of organisation. Large enough for economies of scale, small enough to keep good oversight.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Since railways go from region to region and through regions I would opt for a traffic type model!

Then you avoid cross regional issuses.